Well not the second one, but the first one, all those stats took some time to find. :\ sadness.-
- bowserchomp
- Registered Member
-
Member for 12 years, 10 months, and 28 days
Last active Wed, Nov, 5 2014 18:01:29
- 0 Followers
- 1,964 Total Posts
- 196 Thanks
-
Feb 19, 20131
Kusinagii posted a message on Putting our trust in the hands of the ConsumerI put a lot of work into my post for it to get deleted.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science Well not the second one, but the first one, all those stats took some time to find. :\ sadness. -
Feb 9, 20134
Acetyl posted a message on School SecurityPosted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
Then you lack the basis to even speak on the issue, or the faculty to legitimately look at your own conclusions.
This has been done before in history. Different presentations, different instrumentations. The core remains the same.
What do you define as "mentally ill", why do you define it as such? Who has the ego to think their definition of normality is the universal one? And you know what, does it even matter? No.
Why does that justify clustering them all in the same place against their will, tearing them out of their lives and making things that much more difficult. It wouldn't bring about any new manner of security. It opens the gates for all the people who worm their way into positions of influence to target, and incarcerate everything they see as threatening and abnormal.
Furthermore, most people that do lose their footing, or grasp on their actions, would rarely if ever fall into the channels leading to any kind of diagnosis. Being something that society as a whole has come to label as "faulty" and "ill" doesn't suddenly make them a subhuman ticking time bomb, waiting to go off. Rubbish logic all around, and I can't believe I even wasted the time to respond to it. -
Feb 2, 20132
CosmicSpore posted a message on We Are Making Progress.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from JohnTheRipper
You're a fool if you think people are that reasonable.
Heh, well....
They call me a dreamer.... But I'm not the only one.
I can always have hope to find reason within someone.
Quote from JohnTheRipper
Unfairly? Name some reasons. Good ones, not "hurr durr I want monez why is CEO being paid so much more monez than janitor".
Well honestly I'm not sure why I even have to argue this...? It's simply how taxation currently works...
Are you saying we SHOULDN'T be taxing the rich more than the poor? If so, I'm afraid that this discussion will be required to end here as that argument is beyond unreasonable and there is nothing I could do to reason with you.
But let me address your question... It is quite simple really:
There is a certain amount required for maintaining the standard of living.
The people at or below this amount can't afford to give any percentage of their income as taxes without reducing their standard of living. By reducing their standards of living, they are essentially sacrificing away part of their lives.
For example, someone making minimum wage often can't afford to pay for medical checkups, and they are sacrificing good health. Other times it is for car maintenance. They drive a lemon to work, and when it dies they can't afford to repair it or else sacrifice even more. Since their car is how they make money (is required to go to work), then they are required to sacrifice more either way... and necessarily must repair the car.
Sometimes the care is unrepairable, and they are forced to lose both their job and everything they have if they are not able to find one they can get to on foot, therefore meaning they have no ability to help themselves... If they have no job, then they can't buy a new car. If they can't buy a new car, they have no job.
Understand some of the issues here? Hopefully you do, so let's move on.
When income is above the point of paying for standards of living, the extra income becomes unneeded for living standards. It is just simply extra income.... for whatever they want to use it for. Some refer to it as 'spending money', others as 'extra cash', and others still as 'personal investments'.
For example, not only can an individual pay for health care and a car, as well as possible hospital bills and car repairs, they can also afford to buy a nice car, a nice house, and many other nice things. They have no trouble paying for the things they need, and have extra income to pay for extra things they don't need but instead want.
Some people have so much they don't even have to have a job, or aren't required to work much... They can basically live off of the income they get from various sources without putting effort into those sources.
This is all fine and dandy until we realize that Person A is struggling to make ends meet, while Person B is possessing superfluous luxuries.
So how do we fix this problem? We balance the taxes to appropriately tax the people whom are able to afford to be taxed. In other words, the people with the 'extra income'. Sometimes, this 'extra income' is so much that the amount they possess is far more than they will ever need their entire lives.... So we can tax them even more.
This is fair because.... Now hopefully you'll understand this.... because we shouldn't let some people suffer without while other people have more than they need.
This is kind of what I meant earlier by.... "I'm not a selfish jerk". It's not hard to see how we can justify this, and why pretty much all tax code already works like this, throughout the world.
We simply just can't allow people to suffer underneath the ability to have a fair chance. When there are people who don't have a fair chance, then it's easily justifiable why people who have the most should be giving it to them so that everyone has a chance.
So unless you think like a vicious starving animal and your ethics are so dry that you truly think everyone should keep what they have and not share, even if that means many others die.... Then you should see at least some fairness and justification in this system.
Quote from JohnTheRipper
It's a tiered tax system. You want to make the rich pay even more without raising the base tiers. That is quite certainly discrimination.
You have no idea what you're talking about.... Didn't I just say I am not a politician and don't make such propositions?
I've never said anything like this... You're just making ridiculous assumptions to undermine my arguments.
Although, yes, if I WERE a politician (or a leader, or whatever) then I would most definitely discriminate. I'm a Communist. I discriminate against the entire Capitalist system entirely, and discriminate even more against those who abuse it.
But I'm leaving my personal biases out of this discussion... I've never once remarked or made apparent my biases. I'm speaking strictly as a matter-of-fact situation within the context of how the US tax system already works. I do not argue from bias. I am too reasonable than to ever do such a thing like that.
Quote from JohnTheRipper
Your arguements aren't very consistant.
I've never once wavered in my argument. I've been arguing the exact same this entire time.
It is your assumptions and straw men arguments which are not consistent, simply because they are fallacies. Perhaps you misunderstood me somewhere... but my arguments have definitely been consistent throughout.
Quote from JohnTheRipper
Communism. Because that worked out so well for Russia. Riiight.
Alright, this is where our conversation ends.
Go read the Communist topic or just don't reply... What you said above proves you are ignorant of this subject. It is a common mistake, but that is not an excuse. When you realize why this demonstrates ignorance of the subject, then maybe we can discuss it again.... Until then. -
Jan 29, 2013
3
CosmicSpore posted a message on We Are Making Progress.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from pwntpants
I don't know if you guys realize this, but we are making tons of progress socially, technologically, and really in society as a whole (at least in the US). We seem to get caught up on who would be the better candidate for president, or how evil and corrupt congress is, etc. but we seem to forget how ridiculously fast times are changing. And it amazes me.
Sure Society is 'progressing'... but are they progressing more than previous generations? Not really.
You shouldn't just look at the 'progress' but also at how much is NOT changing... if you want a balanced perspective.
They still don't know how to 'elect a good president', let alone realize that 'Presidents' are entirely unnecessary. They actually think they are getting better at choosing representatives for themselves.
Congress has always been 'evil and corrupt' and that is still continuing, unhindered. No one is changing this... yet they think they are.
They also don't realize how ridiculously slow 'times are changing'. They think everything is moving fast, and are amazed by it.
(^ hint hint)
Quote from pwntpants
Gay rights? More than 50% of people support gay rights.
Yet 'gay rights' are but a minority issue in a nation which has much, much bigger problems.
It's definitely good that support is growing and that things are developing for this minority.... but in the bigger perspective, things haven't really changed at all.
There are still hate groups out there dedicated to diminishing their rights. There are still murderers devoted to murdering them for being who they are. There are still people out there who are disgusted by the thought of a homosexual couple, or by them having children.
These aren't always the minority, either... Nor are these groups exclusively against 'gay rights'. Some of them don't know, some of them aren't concerned... Yet all of them have an opinion.
The thing is... no one should honestly have an opinion... because the topic itself shouldn't even be a topic. 'Gay rights' shouldn't be a social movement, it should just be a basic part of 'human rights' entirely, and people should leave off the 'gay' part... but that's society for you.... stuck in their "We are doing so well by changing this stuff!" mentality.
Quote from pwntpants
I don't need to provide a source; just look at Obama. He went out very shortly before election day... and showed support for gay rights. Someone coming out and taking a side on a controversial issue like gay rights right before an election? Ha! Political suicide! Oh wait.... he still won?
Political suicide, or campaign management? Think about it.
You even said yourself that over 50% now support 'gay rights'... So is he not just appealing to the masses to get votes?
Quote from pwntpants
Believe me, he's the president, he has access to a lot of information. He's not going to come out and take a stance like that if he knows it would hurt his chances of reelection.
Exactly... and that's why it's NOT social change... It's merely political activism at it's finest.
Quote from pwntpants
But aside from that, we have not only the first black president in office, but the first president ever to openly support gay marriage.
And you might want to consider why that is before you jump to the conclusion about "Society is changing so much!".
Is it society which is changing... or the politicians? You tell me.
Quote from pwntpants
Women's rights? Women can now serve on the front lines for the army.
Women have actually been able to do this for a very long time... It's practically only in US history where it was banned, and even then they have been fighting in US wars for quite some time. The only difference now is that they are actually able to sign up to do this, rather than being pushed back to the sidelines.... Of course, what you'll really see, because society itself isn't changing (only the policies themselves) is that you will still see women sidelined and not in combat anymore than they already were before.
Think about it... What changed here? Society, or its laws?
Quote from pwntpantsit has also made progress in the fight for pro-choice. If I'm not mistaken, more than half of Americans are pro-choice now. Or if not, there is definitely a rise in the pro-choice movement. Little anecdote; a republican (and a democrat) came to our school to have a sort of debate.
Perhaps you can consider this 'social change'... but is this not just change in more legal policies?
If you notice carefully, you won't find many people in the world any more understanding, appreciative, or respectful towards women who have abortions.... Only the social standards have changed in, once again, in respects to political agenda.
See a trend yet? Political agendas in all of your examples. The examples themselves ARE entirely political agendas.
Not changes in society... Just the laws society had held, for whatever reasons.
Quote from pwntpants
A girl raised her hand when the republican guy was speaking and she went off on him about not giving women the right to choose and some other stuff along the lines of the pro-choice argument... and you know what? The crowd applauded like crazy.
To be honest... You can rant at practically any politician in an open-forum and you'll more than likely get applause, as long as it's televised... Otherwise people aren't even listening and won't react at all, to anything.
People are just like that... Go ahead and try it yourself.... just watch out for the dudes with the tazer guns.... Don't taze me, bro!
Quote from pwntpants
Obviously not representative of all of America; but in my (heavily republican) highschool, kids applauded someone standing up against pro-life. (That being said, I think most are republican because their parents are.)
Yeah, highschool students applauding after a teen rants at a politician, whoda thunk it, right?
Quote from pwntpants
Religion? For the most part, it's not relevant in government anymore.
Was it really ever?... Go ahead, demonstrate this change.
Quote from pwntpants
Most politicians who act on the Bible usually get denied pretty quickly.
Just as they always have!
Just check out the 'founding fathers'.... You can even see in their writings, as well as their speeches, that pretty much all of them were quite 'religiously liberal' compared to the people of the time, and this is even noticeable in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Go ahead and compare it to other political documents of the era.
Quote from pwntpants
We tend to blow religion out of proportion, especially us internet-goers. "WOW! 70% of the U.S. is Christian! 7 out of 10 people I know are Jesus freaks!"... well obviously not if there's a big movement of people in support of gay rights and abortion.
Your making huge assumptions here....
You're implying that religion and 'gay rights' and 'abortion rights' are casually linked in a direct way... They aren't.
As well, I'm pretty sure no one is 'in support of abortion'... The way you worded that was pretty bad.
Quote from pwntpants
Most people who are "Christian" aren't nearly as villainous as we tend to make them out to be.
Which is why you shouldn't link being Christian with being against 'gay' and 'abortion' rights.
Quote from pwntpants
Hell, in my Gov class a while back, my teacher was making comparisons about how similar people are in their communities, and asked how many people are Christian. All but 2 kids raised their hands. Then, later on he was asking people if they attend church (he wasn't getting all controversial by the way, there's context) and he had to go up and down 2 rows of kids before he found someone who actively attends church... that goes to show that, at least kids, aren't really religious freaks.
That doesn't go to show you anything...... except that you use ambiguous and vague undefined terms like "religious freaks" and expect these phrases to have meaning or relevance.
By the way, your traditional and unreserved perspective on religion? Not a social change... In fact it's ancient... I can demonstrate this all the way back to ancient Greece, and give you dissidents, who were even threatened by death, who spoke harshly against the religion of the time.
It's pretty ironic these terms like 'religious freak' are coming from someone claiming that 'society is progressing so much'.
Quote from pwntpants
Sure they might believe in God but it doesn't mean they're all evangelicals or something.
And not going to church doesn't mean they are NOT evangelical, either... You'd have to make large assumptions about who they are, and what they believe, in order to form such a conclusion... And such assumptions are baseless.
Quote from pwntpants
We are definitely separating our government from religion pretty well.
Evidence of this? You've done nothing to explain or demonstrate this in any way... your only example was of your class mostly not attending church, which really doesn't mean anything... and is highly irrelevant to separation in the government.
Quote from pwntpants
And even though a huge majority of people are Christian, they're definitely not some evangelical super-majority like it's portrayed.
And this was never true throughout history, so it's quite hard to see how this is social progress... Don't you agree?
Quote from pwntpants
Technology? Yeah, I don't even need to go on about that.
You'd be surprised how important this is....
In fact, might I mention that it was merely just around 100 years ago that people were still riding in horse drawn carriages?
Yet the examples of technological advancements you list are:
Quote from pwntpants
All the touch screen innovation and abilities of computers and such. Wasn't the average hard drive like 500MB 20 or so years ago? Now we've got 500GB as the average size... 100x bigger. Again, I don't really need to go on about this as it speaks for itself where technology has taken us.
WOW, we went from 500MB 20 years ago (actually 20 years ago HDDs barely even existed, and were definitely not 500MB) to 500GB... We went from smaller computer, to even smaller computer with more space on it! AMAZING!
Sorry... My Sarcasm just spilt all over the page on that one. I couldn't help it.
Obviously the technolical advancements surrounding computers is the fact that computers themselves exist... The fact they have decreased in size over time is absolutely nothing all that appealing, nor progressive...
Quote from pwntpants
I would go on some more, but you get the idea.
Actually, from your examples and statements... The only idea I had was that society hasn't really changed all that much recently, especially technology wise.
I mean, seriously just name something in the last 10 years that actually 'revolutionized' anything, as much as something like computers, cars, or even electricity did... We really can't, because the last revolutionary device was really just the computer, and more specifically the internet.
And who is to honestly say the internet is really all that much of 'progress'? I honestly can't say that it's actually a GOOD thing it exists... I've seen quite a bit of negative things stemming from it, as well.
But it was definitely 'change' of some sort..... but I think it's good to point out that these sort of 'revolutions' in technology do come about every few decades, and have done so throughout history.
There is simply no sudden amount of technological progress recently... It's only perspective.
Quote from pwntpants
The thing that is craziest about all of this isn't the movements themselves, but the massive changes in American ideology.
Ha! I'd like to see that!
I'm pretty sure that American ideology is still all feeding off of the Western-Christian ideology, as it as always been.
Quote from pwntpants
Hell, only 20-30 years ago us Americans had a radically different mindset.
Such as...?
Quote from pwntpants
Gay rights, black president, women serving on the frontlines, abortion, needing 1TB of storage, having touch screen phones? Not a chance.
Actually, 'gays' did have rights back then. They weren't a political thing back then... people just didn't make a big deal about it, and homosexual people tended to keep it private, as pretty much all society tried to keep their sexualities private.
Compare the social stigma of homosexuality today to the social stigma 20-30 years ago.... It really hasn't changed all that much, except in the world today more people talk about it and make it a much bigger political issue... They have turned it into an entire facet of politics, as if it weren't a minority issue.
Women serving on the frontlines? The issue had just been invented not even 30 years ago, so of course this would change. It never really belonged in the first place..... The law itself which banned women from combat was created in 1994 (less than 19 years ago)... Are you surprised by this?
Abortion... seriously, what about abortion? The medical treatment of abortions is still relatively new... With it only coming into major political view within the last 30 years. Before then and up to now, just like 'gay rights', it was never looked upon fondly (and still isn't today) and is still a rather large social stigma... It has merely just become a political issue.
30 years ago Society barely even had PCs, let alone hard drives, on the consumer market... so it's kind of hard to need 1TB of space when no one had personal computers. I don't think this is really a fair, or even adequate, evaluation of 'progress'.
Quote from pwntpants
But I'll tell you what, the world I live in is a different world than I was born in.
That is true for everyone who ever lived to an age old enough to evaluate the situation of time-lapse between birth and acknowledgement.
What is really worthwhile to evaluate, besides 'progress', is perspective.... As we are all biased by our own perspective, and many people in society often tend to believe that their perspective is somehow radically different than people within history, even of those of their parents.
While it's true many things change over time.... People themselves, and therefore society, rarely ever changes. The only changes they often see are external... Things like introduction of new technologies....
Ideological change? Now that is very rare... Although it, too, has it's moments between revolutions and counter-revolutions... Although the changing of hands between the two could be said as nothing really 'progressing'.
It's really quite strange, and I'd recommend anyone to actually evaluate a little more closely how much CHANGE actually exists now compared to history.... Rather than leaping to the conclusion that any such ideological change has ever really existed.
Edit:
And yes I know this post was long... Sorry. I wanted to adequately cover all the subjects.
And yes I know I intentionally diminished some of the so-called 'progress' society has made. It was very intentional to provide a needed balance to the perspective I knew would be a trend in the topic.
-
Jan 19, 2013
11
Acetyl posted a message on Obesity: The American EpidemicI'm going to say this once, and my post will undoubtedly be ignored. America's obesity problem, is indescribably simple. It is NOT a complex problem, and I'm sick of seeing it treated like one. The only complexity comes in the form of economic backlash upon correcting it. I'll break it down.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
-Soy Beans
Soy is in almost every food you eat, whether it masquerades as something else on the label, or appears directly. If you're the typical human being, everything you ate today had soy in it. We have vast expanses in the midwest (being gradually seized by monsanto) devoted to just soy beans. China had them for thousands of years and wouldn't consider eating them, because they in fact aren't food grade. Whats's so bad about such a benign thing?
-Trypsin inhibitors. Trypsin is an enzyme in the digestive tract that breaks down proteins, thus increasing their bio availability and usability. Without the action of trypsin, the body has a much more difficult time synthesizing new proteins, as there are a lack of usable amino acid chains.
-Goitrogen properties. This essentially means many of soy's isoflavone act to either starve and cripple, or attack the thyroid gland directly. This is done primarily by inhibiting the absorption of iodine. Proper thyroid function, and thyroid hormone levels are vital for maintaining mood, metabolism, weight. Etc.
-Phytoestrogens. Many (most) plants contain some minute trace of an estrogen analog, but soy is unique for two reasons. 1. It has far more than most any edible plant. 2. Dosage, as people are consuming it on a constant basis. Maintaining hormone balance is essentially for metabolism, mood, development. Your body strictly keeps an equilibrium, but it can't do so forever. There is a point when it becomes overwhelmed.
-Undiagnosed allergies. There's a lot of research right now on neurological allergies (chronic inflammation and histamine changes) being an explanation for many childhood mental illnesses. ADD / ADHD being on the forefront of them.
Soy is likely in every meal you ate today. It is so widely used because it is heavily subsidized by the FDA via what was likely lobbying by corporations like monsanto. With the introduction of gene patenting, Monsanto is essentially cross pollinating their modified soy bean to other farmers, then suing them off their land, or right into their pocket by demanding they buy their seeds. No farmer has the resources to stand up to a multi-billion dollar corporation's army of lawyers,
-High Fructose Corn Syrup / Corn
Cheap sweetener, that is added with a bunch of other equally cheap compounds to substitute sugar. In practically anything thats anything. This is mainly due to its incapability of being properly metabolized, and that it almost certainly goes to adipose tissue to be broken down. This in turn elevates (excessively) the levels of ambient circulating triglycerides, which themselves either have to beat down the pancreas with insulin demand, or be stored via adipose. I'm not going to go into corn's inducing insulin resistance, as last I knew the research was still a bit inconclusive, and I'm not overly familiar with it.
Corn and grain in livestock. Cow's and most other animals cannot thrive on corn or grains alone. Their cheap nature makes them more economically valuable. However, this chronically wrecks their natural stomach ph, gives rise to illness, makes them, sickly. This makes it necessary to use growth hormone to age them fast enough to be useful, and antibiotics to make them survive. Just another thing reducing food quality for the masses.
-Pesticides and Preservatives, Flavoring Agents, and Water Quality
It's no secret the majority of our crops are treated with pesticides, and that they have potential negative effects when levels accumulate in the body. They mainly go to adipose tissue and stay there, but constantly leak out. Very similar to how heavy metals deposit themselves in connective tissue and bones, as a comparison. The constant nature of these pesticides can compromise overall air quality for hundreds of miles. By a marginal amount, but still an amount, and it still accumulates. Beyond that, many pesticides will actually find their way into breast milk, exposing infants as well. Other animals like birds, organisms on a lower trophic level, will absorb toxins and spread it to animals on higher one, which then accumulate toxins themselves.
Preservatives are everywhere, whether it be sodium nitrate, soy protein, dozens of others. With our current food distribution model, they are necessary to a degree, but many of them assault the body's equilibrium far too much, and many just go overboard to a ridiculous level in the hope of saving money. Some preservatives harden arteries, some erratically dilate blood vessels. Many people think they're supposed to feel ill or tired after eating, this isn't the case. There is a slight bit of fatigue induced by the sudden insulin spike, but most other effects are other factors at play. (Allergies, cardiovascular system changes, neurological changes, chronic demands on the liver, metabolic changes etc)
Flavoring agents are another issue, that contribute highly to a portion I'll address later. Monosodium glutamate being the one I'll mainly address. Now, free glutamic acid is in almost anything, and its capacity to bind to a free sodium is almost inherent. The issue is mainly produced by it being used a pure additive in high levels, such as the levels you'd find in a bag of Dorritos. MSG is called an excitotoxin, and actually was the first compound to coin the term, because of its capacity to overwhelm glutamate receptors in the nervous system, which in turn stimulates excitation and potentially leads to seizures. Contrary to popular belief, many seizures aren't motor seizures, or full absent seizures. Many of them have the capacity to kill the nerve cell having the seizing event, while remaining otherwise relatively asymptomatic.
Water quality. The addition of fluoride, and many of the water treatment methods leads to negative health as well. Fluoride calcifies the pineal gland at an inhuman rate, the pineal gland serves to promote proper sleep / wake cycles, and controls overall homeostasis. It also calcifies arteries throughout the body leading to a much higher incidence of stroke, cardiovascular disease, arterial disease.
Some post metabolic prescription medications can also be harmful, especially when chlorine is added to them. Some medications cannot be metabolized, like lithium, which will come back to circulate through public water.
Chronic Stress and Illness -
Stress kills, and that isn't an exaggeration. In our modern day society, people are constantly pushed to do things they don't like, at times they don't like, with no real human treatment behind it all. Most American businesses provide barely any vacation or sick time. Many jobs, if you screw up, they won't have much trouble replacing you. Add on to that, we live in a credit and debt based financial model, you have your car loan, your mortgage, your taxes, your heating bill, electricity, food, insurance, constant expenses, expenses, expenses. Most people don't enjoy what they do, or even get to enjoy the result. Its doing things you don't like, to make money so that you can keep what you have, its simply survival at its most basic. But where is the leisure, where is the excess? Where is even the most minute of indication that your work amounted to something other than pocket change, and feeding yourself for another day. That certainly doesn't apply to everyone, but its much more common than I think anyone really wants to look at. Chronic elevation of cortisol is also associated with brain damage, particularly in the hippocampus.
Now the biological mechanisms of that. The body is constantly being overtaxed. Waking up at times it doesn't want to, running on caffeine. It's cortisol levels are through the roof, producing all manner of psychological changes, metabolic problems, wrecking the immune system. And it just keeps going, day after day. Add in the factors above, you eventually become ill. Just ambiently ill. The body is overwhelmed, morale and resolve drops. All of these contribute to both rampant mental illness, and rampant obesity. Children are exposed from day 1, and its no wonder half of them are obese. This dumb cultural notion that obesity is a natural human phenomena needs to stop, now. It's ridiculous and forms a bit of ego based excuses that lets the people making a PROFIT on human misery, and keeping them bent over a barrel, keep on doing it. But it gets worse. It's stockholm syndrome all around.
Its time we stopped reading 50 ingredients on the label of our daily bread.
References -
Soy.
http://thyroid.about...yinfo/a/soy.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12060828
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21325465
Corn.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20219526
http://ajcn.nutritio...t/76/5/911.full
http://pubs.ext.vt.e...10/400-010.html
Pesticides.
http://www.sciencedi...045653504009701
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8593080
http://coeh.berkeley...pubmed/22009134)
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2253462
Preservatives.
http://www.mayoclini...nitrate/AN02119
Flavoring Agents.
http://en.wikipedia..../Excitotoxicity
Water Quality (Fluoride).
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20188782
http://www.sciencedi...003986164904187
http://link.springer...2546416?LI=true
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/4052272
http://www.icnr.com/...deposition.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21946616
Water Quality (Prescription medications)
http://thelede.blogs...water-now-what/
Chronic Stress (Cortisol)
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2692817/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol
-
Dec 26, 20126
Metzgermeister posted a message on Should Cannabis be legal or not?Found this on 4Chan and thought it was very interesting, so I'm posting it here.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
-
Dec 4, 20121
Dairuka posted a message on Unpopular OpinionsPosted in: General GamingQuote from rist_violin
Consoles will never fall until the price of gaming PC's drop.
The average person is not going to pay $600 for a gaming PC that will play the latest Games for 4 years when they can buy a console for $300 that will play the latest games for 8 years.
Quote from Dairuka
In the long run, a console is more expensive. The peripherals (Overpriced Controllers/Keyboard/Mouse/Bluetooth/Motion Captioning Hardware), the repair costs, the tertiary-costs (X-box live) and the ridiculous overpricing of the actual games all add up fast.
The reason the consoles are cheap in the first place is because the creators sell them at a significant loss, specifically to lure you into their marketplace where they make their money back through third-party licensing. (This is the reason console games are so much more expensive than their PC counterparts) - The lowering of console prices as time wears on is due predominantly to how outdated the parts have become. Outdated hardware becomes cheaper when newer, better alternatives show up on the marketplace.
It's essentially the same scheme as the 3-year phone contracts you pay for heavily in the long-run with AT&T. The only way your console is cheaper than my PC, is if you only buy a few games for it - which lowers the value of your console while defeating the purpose of buying it anyways.
PC gamers often hate consoles because of one factor: Developers. By developing games for outdated hardware, they limit the capabilities of the PC version significantly. This means, PC gamers with superior hardware are forced to play inferior games (With often horrible User Interfaces designed for controllers) specifically because they aren't as profitable as the more easily exploitable console gaming fan-base.
The only reason your console plays games for 8 years, is because they force the marketplace to slow down long enough for it to play games for 8 years. (This is to the detriment of all gamers everywhere.)
You're probably too young to remember the days when heavy competition drove companies to release new major consoles and add-ons every few years. For a more modern reminder, you can always look to Nintendo, who is releasing a new handheld with new peripheral ports every year and a half.
It won't be the consumers, or the publishers that decide whether or not consoles stay relevant. It will be up to the third party developers. It's always been up to the third party developers to decide who wins, and who loses. Frankly, it's becoming more profitable and easier for third party developers to create for the PC alone predominantly because of the low risk involved in donation based services like Kickstarter. Much like when publishers used to foot the bill of development - they are now getting paid upfront; the difference is, they retain control over the game's development period, and quality assurance. There are no suits to answer to anymore.
Consoles don't have the same luxury, because the entire premise of a console is control. It's been that way since the days of the Nintendo Entertainment System. It's that kind of control that's going to bottleneck game development in the future. -
Aug 8, 201210
Yourself posted a message on USA Presidential Election 2012 MegathreadPosted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from AramilTheElf
Interestingly enough, the latest stats show that Obama has risen another 0.5 percentage point average in the polls, while both candidates tanked in the Twindex yesterday.
That can only mean one thing: Obama has gotten 0.5% more black. -
Jul 21, 20121
ToastedButterfly posted a message on Shooting in Colorado! I'm madThe part that gets to me though is when terrible things go on in the world people don't care. With the uprising in Syria hundreds of people have been killed by their government, the ones who are supposed to protect the citizens that sure, there may be a news story or two, but then everyone puts it out of there mind. News crews cover it for a day, or part of a day and move on. But when something happens in the United States everyone jumps in and acts like they care. The news is showing only that story for a few days. Truth is people want to seem normal and jump in acting like they care, which some truly do, but most are just concerned with themselves. Like the news crews that go and talk to the victims, forcing themselves at the seen, not giving them any space. The want to get the story so they can make money off of it. Because when you really get down to it its all about the money. Syria has no money, larger groups like the U.N. don't want to help because guess what, there is nothing in it for them, they won't get richer for helping Syria overthrow the government. Any excuse they can find will be good for them. Like when the U.S. joined in in world-war two they had lent billions of dollars to allies like Britain and France. Sending troops was like a way to make sure they wouldn't lose all the money. Everyone just turns and looks the other way when something happens in a small, weak country. But when something like this happens in a big country people from that country act scared, they fear for their lives, they act like they cared about the people who were killed or injured, like it was a big deal. But no one cares when it was somewhere else, far away from here. Humans are a very strange species. We act like we all care for one another sometimes we truly do, but mostly it is and act. Some humans act like they are better than others (racists, homophobes). Some condone these views, others see them as small minded people, who are not open to things they don't think like. In other species you don't see this. Animals don't care whether you are a different color, or if you are gay. It simply doesn't occur to them. Perhaps we could learn a lesson from them. If we want to survive we have to look past these simple things." Why does it matter to you if it doesn't affect you?" This is a quote that we all could learn a little bit from. This can apply just about anywhere. It can be viewed as good and bad under different circumstances. We tend to follow this when talking about things going on in other small countries, but when something like the shooting happens it gets thrown out the window. Even though it may not directly affect you people act like they care, like they feel bad for the people involved. While I'm not saying that it wasn't a terrible thing to happen to the innocent people in the theater, because it was. I am saying that why is this something that people care about, but no one seems to notice other things that go on in the world. Everyday we live is just another day we could cease to exist with this world we live in. Banning guns, and bombs won't stop many of the innocent lives lost outside the area of the ban, which no one ever seems to think about.Unfortunately I don't think this will change, at least not for a long time.Posted in: General Off Topic
Please don't let this offend you, but if I have then I deeply apologize for whatever I have done to offend you. Also, my apologies for going extremely off topic.
I will never be able to understand the world we live in, or the people in it. -
Jul 21, 20124
Facelessone001 posted a message on Shooting in Colorado! I'm madI don't understand the modern world..Posted in: General Off Topic
People die every day. People never think about crazy things that go on in other countries, albeit rarely. But once it happens in any first world country (usually America who blows their own news out of proportion), "oh no."Everyone and their mothers have to get all butt-hurt about it. Stay away from all these negative things. They rarely bring up any sort of discussion value other than everyone agreeing that whomever did some twisted act has a morbidly twisted mind. Keep the wounded in your hearts and thoughts, and the deceased closer. No need to ***** and complain about it. Some people crack. Some people get into things they shouldn't have. Face the facts and move on. - To post a comment, please login.
2
Maybe go to war with another country in the Middle East, trying to find some Muslim "terrorist" with a scary sounding name. Ali-Something Mohammed.
2
Trust me, there's been studies done about this.
1
Sorry, but if you really think that illegal immigrants "take" other peoples' jobs, as if it were no fault of the employer, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
2
A 9-year-old girl giving birth in Mexico is far more important than the deep political corruption going on here in the USA.
6
1
A dog could break free of the leash and become a potential danger in the neighborhood. I got bit by a stray dog once while walking home, didn't even break skin, but I was shaking. I get so annoyed when I walk past houses and a dog barks.
5
3
1
It was a number I pulled out of my hat.
"Where is that money coming from?"
Last I heard, the government prints the money. It's about the allocation of resources, more than anything, to allow the citizens to live without unnecessary worry. It's perfectly doable, it's just that "they" want you to think otherwise. Artificial scarcity is what it is called by those people who can see past the fallacy of the 'merikan dream.
"Where's the self-responsibility?"
That's exactly the type of indoctrination I was talking about. It's not self-responsibility, it's having your freaking hands tied to your back. Most people have a sense of self-responsibility, my friend. That's why they do whatever it takes to keep their pets/kids fed, keep the bills paid, keep the car working, etc. instead of just sitting on their butts and letting their lives go to crap.
"You have to work for a living."
What if you CAN'T freaking work, for a myriad number of reasons?
1. You have an ailing/dying parent/relative you need to take care of.
2. You have a permanent/long-term physical/mental ailment which makes it difficult or impossible to work.
3. You're recovering from something which prevents you from working.
4. No one will hire you for some reason.
That's what the living wage idea protects people from. It allows for a taste of true freedom, to allow people to more easily pursue their (realistic) dreams without having to worry about if they will have the money to pay their bills the next month. Of course, that is, unless they mismanage it. But even then, the money is still going into the economy.
1
Of course. You know what the real problem is?
The fact that the masses are FORCED to work, just so they can survive. They have no choice. Sure, they're generally more comfortable than the poor Chinese folks working at sweatshops, but it's the same exact flawed principle. Not only that, but the masses are endlessly indoctrinated with logic along the lines of "if you don't work, you're a worthless leech!"
That's why we need a living wage, so that the masses can pay their bills and rent, eat, and support themselves and their family without having to work at a soul-sucking, minimum wage, 9-to-5 mcjobs if they don't want to. This would help to make them realize that there is a lot more to life than work work work, and truly make something of themselves, if they want to.
Then maybe we can finally start the transition to... okay, I'm going to stop right there, because I'm going to get hit with the "LOL it doesn't work" routine.